America has spoken...
...then it has decided to go the Euro way. Western Civilization is doomed.
The House is for the Dems it seems. Nasrallah, Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri and Bin Laden send thanks.
Congratulations America.
Mike,
You are correct. The Democrats want America to become more like Europe, even as the European path seems to lead toward collapse.
But the elections of 2008 will tell us whether Americans really support the policies of Euro-socialism and multiculturalism or whether this election was just part of the defeat that the party of an 8 year president typically suffers.
It's done.
One positive that I'm seeing as I sift through the news this morning is that the GOP seems to have gotten the message loud and clear that they have to actually start being conservatives again. As John Derby Shire said on NRO's Corner: "The good ship U.S.S. Compassionate Conservatism just took a torpedo in the magazine." Amen to that.
We're going to have to endure the Dems for at least a couple of years, but at least the next time we have to do this again the GOP should be showing up with some actually conservative policy beyond tax cuts and strong defense. Perhaps the American people will be too wedded to the soft Eurotopia policies of the left by then, but hey, if that's what they want, that's what they want. Again, just look at Maine; where a once independent and hard working people have again voted for high taxes, high spending, and retrograde growth, all in the name of a phony government security blanket.
I look forward to a reformed GOP, and also a Democratic house that will actually have to get some things done other than complaining about the president, although I don't expect much beyond that.
Watching the Fox anchors nearly in tears last night, I do think that losing in such a monumental way will invigorate the GOP and they will come back strong. John McCain really got it. He was saying it's not about Iraq, but about losing the core with spending, never veto'ing a spending bill, corruption, etc.
I've been saying all along that this is a corrupt admin. Now that the fear of reprisal has been released, we've only started to hear what has really been going on. You wait...more to come.
I did notice that exit polls are showing corruption as the #1 issue. Trust is everything in politics...and the GOP has lost it.
"also a Democratic house that will actually have to get some things done other than complaining about the preside"
It's impossible to do less than this past 6 years, so they will do more. I challenged you all to come up with their accomplishments besides war, and it was tough to come up with 5 accomplishments...in 6 years of full-on power.
W. just got a swift kick in the ass that he HAS to work with both sides to get stuff done. None of this "with us or against us" stuff will work in DC.
By the way, Outlaw Mike. The sky isn't falling. Matter of fact, things will stabalize here the way they should. Our system of checks and balances is our greatest asset. I don't think it's a good thing to have one party control the senate, the house, the WH and the supreme court, which is basically has for the past bit.
We'll be just fine...with maybe a few more gay pride parades over the next couple years.
Right now I’m speechless (but not surprised). Here are some positive outcomes from this election. And here is some spiritual and psychological post-election therapy for conservatives.
Buh bye, Rummy. Thanks for all of your "great" work.
Messrs. Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden, Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Bashar al-Assad, Hanyeh et al thank the American Voter.
To all Americans who voted Democrat: CONGRATULATIONS ASSHOLES. Oh, and I see that you have just sent General Patton home after winning in Sicily. Brilliant. Really brilliant. You can really be proud of yourself.
Stupid fuckfaces.
Mike, just calm. Even Bush today, when questioned about if the dems winning will set the war efforts back said basically that stuff is just said during campaigns. In other words, it's just bs propaganda that you believed. Sorry for you.
This is only day 1 of people either jumping ship from Bush admin or at least coming out and telling what they REALLY thought. Evidence #1...your very own Rush Limbaugh:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
home...roll.guest.html
He won't be the last. I partially don't blame them. Going against the Prez, GOP run congress, etc would not be pretty. I'm sure there were a LOT of republicans that disagreed with many of this admin's actions, beliefs, etc, but were afraid to go against it. Now they can...and I'm guessing they will. You'll hear more soon...guaranteed.
In other words, it's just bs propaganda that you believed.
I have made the rational analysis long ago. How good do you know the Middle East Anon? Since how long exactly has it dawned on you - if it has dawned on you at all - that the place exports mainly oil and crazy jihadists? When did you first hear the name Saddam Hussein Anon?
I'll tell you since when I knew Saddam Hussein. Since 1980. And I also knew who was in charge in Syria then. Plus a myriad of other facts. All of which has led me to believe that the only way to turn this fucked up place into something decent which won't constitute a permanent threat to the rest of the world is the introduction of democracy. It's not even sure whether it will work. But since we can be fairly sure the other alternatives won't work at all, OIF deserved the full backing of the American people. From day 1 it got at best lukewarm support. And yet it is the ONLY approach which has, in the long term, the best shot of safeguarding American and western security.
I may be a nutter in many respects and I may bore people to hell. I'm quite sure of that and guess what, I don't even blame them for I am boring MYSELF to hell every once in awhile!!!
But I may not know jack shit about baseball, or be very boring company in a pub or whatever, but I DO happen to know about history Anon. And I am telling you that your country is AT WAR. But as I've been watching the election results, it looks to me like way too many Americans don't want to accept there is A WAR.
Well, here's something: they may vote the only party that more or less guarantees a continued war effort out of Congress, and - God forbid - they may vote a President of that party out of the White House in two years, but they are going to discover they can't vote out Zawahiri & Co.
Horrifying. America has turned a little more like Europe yesterday. Absolutely horrifying.
Mike, while I share some of your concerns, don't be depressed. One positive outcome is that the Dems can't sit around bitching and moaning constantly like they have for the past 6 years. The perception of responsibility will be shared now, so failure in Iraq and elsewhere will translate into their own perceived failure if they're not careful. Shitting all over Iraq was a convenient way to attack Bush, but even Howard Dean this morning was saying that we can't cut and run in Iraq. Most of these guys understand that simply pulling out would be suicidal; now they can admit it as if it were their own original idea and not be drummed out like a Bush shill as Joe Lieberman was (notice how he won against an anti-war lefty.)
The dems have to perform now, and they know the run away and hide message is not going to resonate with America. These guys are going to moderate like crazy, at least as far as the war goes.
One other observation: When the Republicans lose, you don't hear any pissing and crying about rigged elections. You hear "what do we need to do to make things better." When the dems lose, it's all conspiracy theory, racism and disenfranchisement. I wonder if they'll give GWB credit for cleaning up all of the voting corruption that magically vanished this time around?
One other reason I'm not losing my mind: Majorities seem all powerful until the majority realizes their potential power. Then they all act like the GOP did and fracture into their splinter groups, because there's no need to band together for survival any more. I could easily see this happening with the far left and moderate dems.
It will be interesting to watch. If things continue to get better, the dems will try to suddenly take ownership of things like the good economy. If they get worse, GWB will be even more of a punching bag.
That all sounds very reasonable Scott. Still, that won't stop euro gloating: from CNN:
In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world" and gloated that they left the Bush administration "seriously weakened."
Pardon me if I'm depressed. I see how's it going here. Moroccans now killing each other in broad daylight, heavy surge in honour killings, doing biz more difficult all the time, imams will be paid by the state from 2007 on, a mosque for 70,000 in London, Parisian metro taken over by thugs...
...and then you see the US turning like Europe. When I listen to Pelosi et al, they sound so eerily like the politicians over here.
Scott,
I don't know if the Republican party will ever satisfy its most loyal right-wing supporters (like me), just as the Democrat party will probably never satisfy its most loyal left-wing supporters.
That's not to say that we can't hope for and work for a government that will be more free-market oriented. But as you mentioned, people like an economic security blanket, even if that economic security blanket ends up strangling them!
As for the US House seats that the Republicans lost yesterday.....
Some of them will be won back in the 2008 election.
The most obvious candidate for a "take-back" would be the 22nd US House district of Texas (voted 64 pct for Bush in 2004), because the Republicans were trying to win a last ditch write-in campaign after Tom Delay left the race (thinking the judges would take him off the ballot).
Indiana's 9th district (voted 59 pct for Bush in 2004) is going to be a dog-fight between the two parties until either hell freezes over or there is a new redistricting plan drawn at the start of the next decade.
California's 11th district, (voted 54 pct in 2004 and where Richard Pombo lost) might be a tough seat for the Democrats to hold on to in a Presidential election.
Kansas's 2nd district (voted 59 pct for Bush in 2004) is likely to be a hot potato for the Democrats.
But my analysis of the last 30 years of Congressional elections is when a political party holds the White House, it's only a question of time until it coughes up control of the US House and US Senate. There's a certain law of physics at work in the interplay between the White House and Congress.
Neither political party has been able to simultaneously hold on to the US House, US Senate and the White House for as much as 6 consecutive years since the 1960s (1960-196
.
damn those emoticons.......
Neither political party has been able to simultaneously hold on to the US House, US Senate and the White House for as much as 6 consecutive years since the 1960s [1960-1968].
Another observation.
Pennsylvania's 4th district voted 54 pct for Bush in 2004, while Pennsylvania's 6th district voted 51 pct for Kerry.
Yet, Melissa Hart lost her reelection bit in the 4th and Jim Gerlach won reelection in the 6th.
Obviously the personalities of the local candidate matter. It's not too much of a surprise to me that Don Sherwood lost his 10th Pennsylvania district (which voted 60 pct for Bush in 2004) in large part because of his extramarital affair that seems to have included some physical abuse.
Still, the whole thing is fascinating, even if also a bit depressing!
"I wonder if they'll give GWB credit for cleaning up all of the voting corruption that magically vanished this time around?"
Oh, gimme a break. I saw a bunch of articles about bad voting problems with machines and such. The GOP was flooding VA with law students and lawyers to help with the recount. Scott, your right-sided conspiracy theories don't add up.
Mark, as far as Delay's district, you might be right. However, don't forget that TX did all that BS of redistricting that would help the GOP for this election. I wonder if the dems there will try to re-redistrict. Delay...just another corrupt one of this administration.
The key to winning the 08 elections and EVERY election is trust by the public.
Gore lost the election because he seemed fake and nobody trusted him, while everyone thought they could trust W.
W. won again in 04 because nobody could trust Kerry's shiftiness, that wasn't that different than Gore.
Bush and MANY in his party have gone crazy with corruption this past 2-3 years and paid dearly for it. I am still shocked how poorly they did. However, the #1 post-poll issue that voters said mattered was NOT the WOT or Iraq...it was corruption. People don't want to feel taken.
We'll see how trustworthy the dems are this next couple of years. They can't do any worse than the GOP...this was a monumental collapse considering the power they had and that we are in a wartime effort. I never thought the dems were even close to the senate, too...which it now looks like they may win. Crazy stuff...
Scott, one other note: you can't blame the left for screaming a little louder at election fraud. You do know about Diebold, right?
Why or how the company that programs and manages our electronic voting machines can be a supporter of one party is beyond me.
If EVER there should be a non-partisan group to watch over something...maybe we should think about it with this.
I'm glad the dems won in a landslide...Rove being SO confident (turns out WAY OVER confident) the past few weeks had me thinking he had a nice lunch visit with Diebold recently.
Outlaw Mike, I've heard you bitch so much about Europe. Why don't you move? That's what all the righties say to me when I gripe about the direction of the US?
I personally have been many times and love Europe. Trade?
I'm with you Mike. I'm depressed and angry at the idiots who voted Democrat. The American masses apparently aren't going to get it until a nuke goes off in Washington DC. Stupid stupid stupid.
ncb, thank you.
Just sent an email to Fox. They asked what readers thought of Rummy's resignation. Wrote:
Mr. Rumsfeld may not be the most likeable character but it is my conviction that in these difficult times, with the West as a whole facing a merciless adversary, he
was the right man on the right spot.
In another era, a general Patton risked being sent home for slapping a soldier suffering from shell shock in Sicily. In spite of what one may think about this admittedly very harsh treatment, luckily for the westen democracies Patton was
allowed to stay on the job and contribute greatly to the final victory over Nazism.
While the analogy does not completely fit, here too we have a great war leader whose harsh ways and uncompromising nature have led to incessant criticism at home and
abroad. Unlike in the Patton case, these criticisms, in most cases from military ignoramuses, have led to Mr. Rumsfelds resignation.
Personally, I feel very distressed about the disappearance of a Secretary of Defense who - make no mistake - kept a relentless pressure on the enemy. I am sure though
that mssrs. Nasrallah, al-Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad, to name but a few, won't feel distressed at all.
Why don't you move?
I'm taxed as hell, hiring personnel is incredibly difficult and costly, but...
* In 1997 I bought my dreamhouse here.
* My mother-in-law and father-in-law live in Poland, and already now - we visit them only twice a year - they yearn for every visit of their daughter. Moving to the States would reduce the frequency of the visits even more.
* Same goes for my parents and sisters. I praise myself lucky we have a rather tight family. Plus, I feel that I have a responsibility towards my parents, who are around 70 and who will need help in 10-15 years. I am the only one of the siblings who lives in their vicinity.
* Last but not least, leaving here would be like my personal cut and run.
Oh and Anon, if you like Europe so much, you can move over here even if I stay put here. Try not to get involved in gang wars, there just was one between North Africans and Turks in the cosy little town of Aalst. I think we will see these lovely cultural interactions more often in the near future. Even among ethnic groups themselves. The top tourist attractions in Antwerp is the spot where one Moroccan pushed another one under a tram for some weird unknown dispute. He didn't look quite good when they got his remains from under it. Curiously, the outpouring of grief from the Moroccan community in Antwerp was, uh, lukewarm. These guys know more than us infidels do you know.
Also, you might want to avoid the Paris subway.
anon,
Mark, as far as Delay's district, you might be right. However, don't forget that TX did all that BS of redistricting that would help the GOP for this election. I wonder if the dems there will try to re-redistrict.
The Texas redistricting was done prior to the 2004 election. Remember how veteran Democrat Charlie Stenholm lost the newly redistricted 17th district in the 2004 election?
As for the Democrats trying to redistrict, redistricting is something that state legislatures do. Both the Texas state house and the Texas state senate are controlled by the Republicans.
I'm kinda surprised (amazed, really) that the Democrats didn't defeat Steve Chabot in the Ohio 1st or Deborah Pryce in the Ohio 15th.
Ohio 1st voted 51 pct for Bush and Ohio 15th voted 50 pct for Bush, 50 pct for Kerry.
You can judge all this against John Kerry, but keep in mind that John Kerry was a remarkably bad candidate and EVERYONE including democrats knew it. Nobody and I mean NOBODY really liked him...and he still got with 2% of winning.
Feel lucky the dems put forth such a bad candidate or Bush never would have been elected. So, in my opinion, it's mistake for you to base future projections on that election. If the dems had a half way decent candidate, the landscape would have been quite different.
Now the question is, will the dems put another Kerry on the ballot in '08. I personally think that Hillary is a horrible choice, but it's very hard to argue with her fundraising abilities and notoriety.
Me? I would love a southern, democratic GOVERNOR to step forward for the dems. Senators have too much baggage...not a coincidence that our past 2 presidents came from governorships.
Like the GOP did to Kerry, you can rip apart senatorial votes all day long. They vote against 1 piece of pork on a bill and the opponent uses it against them, especially if their candidate didn't come from a "voting" position. It's nearly impossible to come off clean in this scenario.
All that said, I am guessing that there is not a governor that I can think of that could step forward. I personally think Hillary will win and put John Edwards on the VP ticket. I personally wish it was the oppposite...Edwards is slick and the country might accept a female VP before a female president. But again, money talks and Hillary will WAY out fundraise Edwards.
Scott,
Don't feel so bad about Maine.
Here's in Colorado, as a result of yesterday's elections, we are living in "Demo-topia." The Democrats have won the Governor's office (the incumbent Republican was term limited) and retained control over the state House and state Senate.
Colorado is currently a low tax state overall, or so I have read. And we have something called the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which prevents the state government from raising taxes without a vote of the people affected.
anon,
You can judge all this against John Kerry, but keep in mind that John Kerry was a remarkably bad candidate and EVERYONE including democrats knew it. Nobody and I mean NOBODY really liked him...and he still got with 2% of winning.
But that can be argued both way, can't it?
Republicans can say, "If Bush were more articulate, he would have really cleaned Kerry's clock."
But the real reason why I use the Bush versus Kerry vote by Congressional District as a measurement tool is because it provides a sense of how conservative or liberal the district is.
Out of 435 US House districts, only about 45 of them are "mixed," Republican in the Presidential election and Democrat in the US House election or the reverse.
And if Democrats think that John Kerry is/was such a horrible candidate, why did millions of Democrat primary voters select him over the other contenders (Edwards, Lieberman, Dean, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, Gephardt, Graham, Clark)?
If John Kerry was a bad candidate, that mean Democrats are idiots, bigger idiots than Bush, because Bush beat the Democrats' hand picked candidate!
This is an interesting piece by Daniel Casse
Let the Hillary campaign begin in earnest! These midterm elections have given us a great preview. The last six months have been, if nothing else, an immense Democratic drag show. They have run football quarterbacks, medal-festooned veterans, pro-life moderates. Every liberal facial tick has been suppressed. Every left-of-center blemish cosmetically disguised. Surely this responsible, reasonable visage of Democratic sanity was a dress rehearsal for the look and style of Senator Clinton’s 2008 masquerade. Our challenge for the next two years will be to pull the mask off this charade and bring the Democrats' worst habits and inclinations back to the forefront of American politics. We need to stir the pot, resurrect their favorite boogeymen, and stoke the fires beneath Barbara Boxer and Bobby Byrd. How about raising the specter of a Cheney presidential run? Or a whisper campaign advocating presidential pardons for Jeff Skilling and Bernie Ebbers? What about election-reform legislation that offers a big, fat, no-bid contract to Diebold? George Soros call your office. Your party — and ours — needs you.
Mark, TABOR was on the ballot in Maine this time around and got rejected. A couple months ago it was polling 70/30 in favor, but the government and teacher's unions kicked in a 5-1 spending advantage over the pro TABOR group and it ended up going down 55-45. We should not be surprised that the people spending the tax dollars fought so hard against a resaonable spending limit.
Anon, my comments about the dems whining about voter fraud were somewhat tonge in cheek, but you can't escape the fact that you guys cry like no one else when you lose. At least the GOP spared us all that embarassment and took it like men.
As far as the socialists in Europe are concerned, each and every one of them can suck it. We could give a flying fuck what their opinions are; go talk to someone who cares like John Kerry. I do think they should know how to spot "seriously weakened" though, as this is precisely what they have done to Europe over the past several decades.
All praise belongs to Allah (swt), Lord of the Worlds!
Truely the enemies of Allah (swt) are in total disarray. By your own words, your disgustingly corrupt society is in its death throes. Sin runs rampant and you face the final descent into the abyss.
There is only one answer. It is long past time to discard your corrupt and unjust man-made governments and laws and impose Islamic law (Sharia). Only then can the evil that pervades Western society be supressed. Only Sharia can protect the citizenry from harm and guarantee justice.
The time to act is now. Reject all your false gods and acknowledge the supremacy of Allah (swt) and His believers. That is all that is necessary to live in peace under the protection of Islam.
You have only three choices:
1. Embrace Islam and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).
2. Acknowledge the supremacy of Islam and live in peace as an infidel under the protection of Islam.
3. Leave this Earth and join your ancestors in Hell.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
Anon, I just hope there is an America left to vote in '08. Osama was proven right yesterday. He has said all along that that AMerica doesn't have the will to fight, now all that is left is to decide who makes the Democrats give up America. On a positive note. Pelosi and Hill-de-beast would look better in Burkas.
Meanwhile, back in Washington we now will have a Senate Majority Leader who is under investigation for Fraud, Corruption and Influence peddling. This is an improvement?
Scott,
Sorry to hear about the defeat of Maine's version of TABOR. It's amazing how many people believe that teacher's unions care about children's education, not their own pay and benefits, which is what unions are formed to care about.
A former president of a national teacher's union once said that he would start worrying about childrens' education when children begin paying union dues. His remark was serious and honest. He viewed himself as a union lawyer, not a child advocate.
The word is out.
Yesterday's biggest winners were.....
Illegal immigrants!
Mike,
David Frum has written an excellent column.
For the Virginia Senate seat, they nominated Ronald Reagan's former secretary of the navy, Jim Webb. Webb served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam, winning more combat decorations than any other member of his U.S. Naval Academy class. Webb's son has just shipped out to Iraq with the Marines himself.
This may be one of the most hilariously ironic races in the country. National Democrats are slamming the incumbent Republican senator George Allen for his fondness for Confederate memorabilia. Yet their candidate Webb genuinely is what Allen merely pretends to be: His great-great-grandfather rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest's murderous cavalry; Webb, who has often spoken eloquently in praise of the southern soldiery, named his own son after Robert E. Lee. Talk about your red-state appeal!
and it gets better.....
The Republicans owe their advantage on national security not merely to what their candidates did on the battlefield, important though that always is, but to the ability of the party to express and champion American nationalism. And that is a task at which Democrats have seldom succeeded.
Now Democrats have gained another chance. They are likely to exercise some legislative power for the first time since 1994. They will wield the gavels and hold the microphone. What will they say? Will they find words to express determination to win the war on terror? Or will they express doubt, reservation, and weakness? Will they persuade the public that they too truly in their heart of hearts want to take the fight on Islamic extremism to the enemy? Or will they use their new power to demand negotiations with Iran and a hasty exit from Iraq?
Where will they stand on the surveillance of terrorists, on the protection of America's borders, on rebutting the slurs and falsehoods hurled at the United States from critics in the Middle East and false friends in Europe?
Will Democrats, in other words, find the inner strength to break away from their old well-earned image of weakness? Or will they espouse that same weakness but with better resumes?
Here's an interesting comment from RedState....
The election confirmed what we already knew, which is that the US is almost equally divided between fantasists and realists. This, also, is nothing new. We are not the country conservatives think we are, and 1994 was an anomaly.
This time, though, the ugly world is banging at the door, and no matter how many Donks get elected, as things deteriorate further, those who voted for these vacillating, empty goons, will be grabbing the lapels of the fighters, whoever they are, to save them.
It has always been this way. The brave and decisive always carry the languid, the weak and the stupid to safety.
"the US is almost equally divided between fantasists and realists. "
I'll say that's right. I assume you are putting the religious right into the fantasists side? We atheists in the realism category?
Anon, interesting that being "sure" there's a God is fanaticism, while being "sure" there isn't one is realism in your world. Since neither can be proven, I'd say anyone who claims to be sure is on shaky logical ground.
I have to say overall I'm not pessimistic about this whole thing, mostly because I have great faith in the US. I stick by my observation that the Dems will be so eager to prove that they're not actaully weak on defense/ terror that they will not leave the Iraqis hanging or do anyhing drastic to undermine the WOT in general. Think about it; if they can overcome this stigma, what's to keep them from winning election after election? All the anti war Bush bashing was fine as a means to gain power, but they have to be grownups now and accept responsibility for their actions. Deep down most of them know that the soft Euro approach to the Islamists is tantamount to slitting our own wrists.
Sometimes you need to stir the pot to get any real change. The GOP needed real change, and it woudln't have happened if they held on to power. Sure, we run the risk of the Dems completely ruining the things the GOP did right, but what's done is done. I think the Democratic majority will look a lot more like the old GOP majority than most people think.
"Since neither can be proven" Hmm...science, anyone? You and I both know what I'm talking about...yes there are things still unanswered, but relgion is hardly in the realm of realism. It could be argued that realism is the OPPOSITE of faith...
I agree with your assessment on how the dems will act. Pelosi and gang MUST take the high road over the next two years and not try to handslap Bush for his dismissing of them this past 6. You are right that they will not jump into the stereotype (that you all like to repeat) of weak dems. Pelosi has also said any impeachment hearings are off the table...
That said, they WILL and SHOULD call hearing about all the mistakes that have happened during the runup to the war and the war itself. These should have taken place already...
Delay...just another corrupt one of this administration.
anon
Accused.... NOT convicted, and he won't be, convicted that is. What about Dirty Harry and his 1.2 million abuse of power case. Think it will get to trial now? I don't, and it WILL be an issue in the future. Peloski did the exact same thing Delay is accused of doing, only in California it's not illegal, so she just took the money back. No, the Democrats are just a dirty as the Republicans. Graft and Coruption are built in to the American political system.
I spent yeserday selling stocks, and judging from the market so did a lot of others. Profit taking. The Market will crash between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Unemployment at 10% by March, 15% by June. Major attacks by terrorists all over the world, now that the US has voted to surrender.
I'm starting the process of checking out. I hope to be in Australia within two years. I'll help them make Western Civilization's last stand.
There is no 1st amendment in Australia, so they won't have to worry about the Media selling them down the river.
Anon, you are laughing, but I wonder if you will still have your sense of humor when the ragheads come for you.
The jihadists are the unlitame Conservatives, only their law comes straight from gods mouth and you can't hear him, so you don't have any choices besides obey those who can, or die. Good luck with that.
The Demonrats DID NOT win in a lanslide.
Average 6th years election are 31 house and 6 Senate seats switch, so this was just an average 6th year election.
Your corruption, trust theory is garbage. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans. This election was about fighting the war on terror or surrendering to the terrorists.
America choose to surrender, a choice they will regret in the future.
Scott, I disagree for several reasons.
The driving force, the passion, the eneergy behind the Democrats is the Anti-war movement. Granted the Democratic control of Congress was gained by finding Conservative Democrats to run for office. The thing about the AMerican system of government is that those same conservative Democrats will NOT have much say in how things are run. They will be expected to sit in the back of the room and vote as ordered. If they don't, they will be punished.
So to expect the same things out of a Democratic Congress as a republican congress is nonsense.
Granted, some of the newly elected Donks are more conservative then the Repus they replaced, they won't have the power of those they replaced.
The San Francisco Liberal; are now in Charge of America.
That means More Taxes, Higher unemployment, a weaker military.
NO SDI, No new Air planes, no new rifle, no small nukes, etc. etc. etc.
I think that the Dems will weaken the US military to the point where the USA cannot fight any more wars. That is the goal of the Anti-war wing. Naturally, AlQaead and the Taliban will not be voted out of existance, so we will lose the War that has been forced on us.
""Since neither can be proven" Hmm...science, anyone? You and I both know what I'm talking about...yes there are things still unanswered, but relgion is hardly in the realm of realism. It could be argued that realism is the OPPOSITE of faith..."
Anon, science can tell you exactly nothing about the existence or lack of existence of a deity. Obviously proving a negative is fundamentally difficult, but trying to discount religion with science is an act of faith in and of itself. I know the lefty atheist types feel intellectually superior for not believing in God, but I see no intellectual supereority, or inferiority, in ones position on religion. Personally I'm agnostic, but I don't look down on religion (only its misinterpretation) and I don't look up at secularism. While we're on the subject, we could point out that there are secular religions as well, like Socialism, which can be proven scientifically and historically to be unworkable, yet have the following of millions of "elite" atheists more interested in keeping the faith than any actual science.
All this talk of who's more corrupt is a grand waste of time. Next we should argue: Who is more evil; Stalin or Hitler? or Who is more gay; Richard Simmons or American Muslim? It's politics folks, and they are a bunch of greasy crooks when taken as a whole. The really smart and really good people are in the private sector, where the money is, and where they won't be turned into a sub-human evil bungling jackasses by the media and their political opponents.
That's why I left room for it...science can not prove or disprove a deity, but it sure as hell can refute about 75% of the stories in the bible, including some very fundamental teachings. Give me a break, Adam and Eve? Noah's Ark? Come on...I agree that all questions cannot be answered and I do believe science can get it wrong MUCH of the time...but I would still say that the average rational atheist is closer to reality than your average fundamental bible thumper.
Maybe it is pointless to argue who is corrupt...maybe it's easier to argue about which corrupt politicians are dumb (or too drunk with power) enough to get caught. There sure are a lot of them around right now...most of them on the right, which makes perfect sense. Checks and balances are our friends...not surprising that when they go, corruption escalates.
Give me a break, Adam and Eve? Noah's Ark? Come on...
I'm long past that, and I call myself moderately religious. Try to get used to the fact that for many religion has evolved beyond that level.
So, I hear the Senate is for the Dems too. You should see the gloating over here. I's dripping from the newspapers and TV screens. Oh well. Maybe should I try to focus on nicer things.
Well, you're grouping all religious people into the fundamentalist literal interpretation of the bible gang, when the vast majority of Christians in America aren't nearly so fundamentalist. Most people believe in God but don't get too hung up on the specifics like Adam and Eve etc, and accept those as stories that teach rather than historical accounts. You're also referencing Old Testament events, which I agree mostly have no historical/ scientific basis. Christianity however is all about the New Testament, and there's pretty solid evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Whether or not he was the son of God is a matter of faith, but you certainly can't say the whole thing is a sham.
I don't agree that most of the corrupt folks are on the right, but the party in power will always be more heavily scrutinized by the media, and if that party happens to be Republican, then even more so. This is why nobody is covering things like the Harry Reid scandal or the William Jefferson scandal, but Tom Foley's lewd IMs take the headlines for a week and possibly gain the dems a few house seats.
Here is what I consider to be the best slant on the election so far. the writer is a Laywer and not a politican, which gives a little distance.
Outlaw, point out that after two elections supporting the WoT and the battle of Iraq, the correct reading of the election results is that Americans are unhappy about NOT having Won the battle ofIraq already, not over fighting there in the first place....
In other wordsd the election wasn't about the plan, but about the execution of that plan.
See if that wakes them up. PRESIDENT Bush needs to loose his compasionate side and just go roman on a few arab shieks. It's obvious that very few American swallow his line of bullshit about "we are not at war with Isalm". Islam is at war with us and if this administration won't make war back, then we needed to change the guard.
I think it will be too little to late, but I've been wrong before.
I predicted the French Civil war for last July and it looks like I will be off by 6 to 8 months. Maybe more, since even the Muslims aren't stoopid enough to start a shooting war in mid winter. They will lose for sure.
anon you really have a problem with religion, don't you? I read you're an atheist. Well, I pity you. You'll find out the Truth too late. Otherwise, scott's last comment on the matter sums up my thoughts just about perfectly.
I think that the da 12th anon is right in his| 11.09.06 - 2:17 pm comment.
As far as Democrat intentions go, I think this NYT article or here tells it all. Money quote:
"First stop next year will be legislation calling for an undetermined number of troops to come home immediately. Though Democrats are divided over exactly what to propose, they say their effort will send a loud political signal to disgruntled U.S. voters, and to Iraqis to assume more responsibility."
Re anon's statement about impeachment hearings being "off the table"... I'm not so sanguine. It'll be hard or impossible to restrain Conyers.
Remember, the Dems are wedded to the seniority system (unlike the GOP), and most of their senior people are nutcases like Conyers, Rangel, and Murtha. They'll fight for impeachment. It won't happen, mainly because many Dems in this new class are like Heath Shuler, ie somewhat reasonable.
Oh and Pelosi told Brit Hume that Iraq was "not a war to be won but a situation to be solved."
Video here
It's back to Carterism, folks. These old time libs just can't help themselves.
I might be in disagreement with Scott on this one.
I do not believe that there is much of a silver lining for the right of center (conservatives/libertarians) to be found in the Democrat takeover. I don't see any disadvantage in having control over legislative chambers like the US House and the US Senate.
Executive offices are another matter. Many Americans believe that the President is "in charge," as though there is no such thing as Congress. But one could argue that Congress has more influence over domestic (fiscal/economic/regulatory) policy than the President does.
The only consolation for me, as someone who is right of center on most issues, is US House elections occur every 2 years and some (though not all) of the House seats won by the Democrats in Tuesday's election will be hard for them to retain.
But the main reason why I am not too bummed out over these results is out of gratefulness for the elections Republicans won:
The 2000 Presidential vote (electoral college only)
The 2000, 2002 and 2004 US House elections
The 2002 and 2004 US Senate elections (we lost the 2000 US Senate elections, but didn't really learn about it until Jim Jeffords from Vermont switched parties).
So, having dodged bullets in the previous three elections, I won't whine too much about failing to dodge this more recent bullet.
That said, I don't know how many more Left-wing bullets America can afford to take in the chest before dying. Michael keeps pointing out that the Left can promise everything, but they will deliver what they have delivered in Europe.
When I listed the elections I am grateful the Republicans won, I should have mentioned the one that was arguably the most important: The 2004 Presidential election where Bush beat Kerry.
You guys had an interesting discussion about religion and science.
Maybe this point has already been made, but maybe not.....
I think it is entirely possible that someone can be right about whether this or that event described in the Bible actually happened and wrong about whether taxes should be cut or whether we should have a government run national health care program.
My disagreement with the Left isn't that they aren't religious enough. I am not a religious person myself. My disagreement with the Left is over policy issues, such as the role of government taxation, spending, regulation and litigation in the economy, not to mention national security issues.
Someone can be brilliant in computer science or medicine, but be totally misguided on economics and national defense.
I think Jimmy Carter was and is a very smart person. But when it came to the issues of how America should project its power and how it should run its economy, he was nearly always wrong. And I would say the same for Richard Nixon, a Republican. Smart guy, wrong on many policy issues.
Scott,
Can you give me a description of how Maine's 4 way governor's race played out?
Who were these candidates and where were they on the issues? How did the incumbent pull it out? Was the Republican a RINO or a conservative/libertarian?
Got this from FOX News:
"In a speech released by her agency Friday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said MI5 had foiled five major plots since the July 2005 transit bomb attacks in London."
There's a war going on against the West,
Stehpinkeln, I would not agree on that. I think too many Americans just got bored of the Iraq operation. They can't stand no longer some flimsy war coverage in between Battlestar Galactica and a commercial for a vacation on Barbados.
Islam is at war with us and if this administration won't make war back, then we needed to change the guard.
And that means firing Rummy? I'd say, fire half America instead. Jesus Christ, all that CRAP about that's his fault because in spite of Shinseki he recommended 100,000 plus ofr OIF and not 500,000. Give me a break. What a fucking hoax. So easy to rebuff I can't imagine why no one comes up with the counterargument. To have 500,000 men on the ground requires a standing army of 1,500,000. To the best of my recollection the US has a ground army of 400,000, some 70,000 USMC ground troops not counting.
Rummy said you go to war with the army that you have, not the army that you want, and that is just what he did.
If Americans were SERIOUS about winning the Iraq war, then they should be prepared to foot the bill for half a million men on the ground.
But are they?
Keep in mind that imho that's financially perfectly possible. In times of war industrial nations CAN maintain armed forces amounting to 10% of the population without going bankrupt for three or four years. In the case of America, that'd mean an army of 30 million.
Right now, how many all arms combined? Two million?
Of course, even so the job performed is a million times better than us euroweenies. But we're gonna pay the price. We're gonna pay the price.
Mike,
I think you are on to something.
The American people spoke on Tuesday and here's what they said:
"I'm tired of this war on terror. The world is a mess, especially the Middle East, especially Iraq. Let's just go home and try to prevent the mess that exists overseas from spilling into the United States."
Basically, the American people are saying that they want to "go home," meaning go back to September 10, 2001, when we didn't have to worry about Islamic extremism, building democracy within a dysfunctional and retrograde culture.
I understand that desire for a peaceful live and quiet time. But I don't believe the Islamists will let us have it.
I still think you guys put far more weight on the WOT than most people. I just read an article that most hispanic voters voted democratic by far this election. It had nothing to do with the war...it had to do with the hardline talk from the GOP on immigration.
I would also guess that Bush's rating is pretty darn low with black people after Katrina.
I'm not bringing these points up to argue the truth of those situations...but perception matters. Not every sits around and blogs all day on this stuff. Your average Jose out there is no fan of the GOP right now. Your average black person is clearly not going to be in Bush's corner.
The GOP has some serious work to do before 2008 to overcome these perceptions. If all these people actually voted, it'd be an easy win for the dems.
anon,
I think a longer historical view provides a better perspective.
Hispanic voters and Black voters nearly always vote Democrat. As for immigration and the Hispanic vote, the Republicans were divided on that calculation.
Bush took the view that accepting another amnesty for illegal immigrants would be either good politics (helping the GOP with the Hispanic vote) and/or good policy (they're here anyway, why not make them legal citizens).
The House Republicans took a different view and this was largely a result of hearing from their voters back home at town meetings.
Christopher Shays, a House Republican from Connecticut, is one of the House's more liberal Republicans. He originally supported Bush's immigration plan. But after holding a few town meetings, he decided that he would not support any amnesty proposal. And Christopher Shays got reelected.
True. Connecticut doesn't have many Hispanic voters. But US Senator Jon Kyl won reelection to the US Senate in Arizona even as Kyl supported something very similar to the House Republcian approach: enforce the law, no amnesty.
As for solving the Republican "perception problem," the only hope for the Republicans, in my opinion, is for the Democrats to turn people off.
To use a football analogy. The Democrats have the ball now. The Republicans can only hope for a Democrat fumble or interception.
And the 2008 presidential race will give the American people a straight forward choice between the two parties. The result will probably depend mostly on who the Democrats choose and who the Republicans choose.
In both parties, the nominating contest is wide open.
Mark: But I don't believe the Islamists will let us have it.
Hmm, no, don't think so. I just read that the Al Qaeda bigshot in Iraq has stated that they will never rest until the White House is destroyed.
Of course, it could just be a Rovebot message and you just can redeploy.
As for the "longer historical view."
Midterm elections always represent potential trouble for the party that holds the White House.
In every presidential election, I often wonder, "Would it be better if the Democrat won the White House?" The reason why I wonder this is because the party that holds the White House is perceived by much of the American public as being "in charge." The ol' Harry Truman saying of "the buck stops here."
But there's a thing called Congress, and they have power too.
Still, if a political party is going to lose its control over Congress, 9 times out of 10, it's going to lose it in a midterm election in which their party holds the White House.
It happened in 1994, when Clinton was in the White House; It happened in 1986 when the Republicans went from having a 53 to 47 majority in the US Senate to having a 45 to 55 majority during the 6th year of the Reagan administration.
This net loss of 8 Republican US Senate seats happened just 2 years after Ronald Reagan won a 49 state victory over Walter Mondale.
CAIRO, Egypt — Al Qaeda in Iraq's purported leader vowed on Friday that his fighters would never rest until they have reached Jerusalem and destroy the White House.
In the audio tape made available on a militant web site, a man introduced as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir said Al Qaeda has 12,000 fighters at the ready in Iraq.
"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.
anon: I still think you guys put far more weight on the WOT than most people.
I agree wholeheartedly with you anon. Only extremists like us and them spend a lot of time thinking about the WOT:
"The victory day has come faster than we expected," he says. "Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away."
The speaker claims his al Qaeda army has 12,000 soldiers -- with 10,000 more waiting in the wings to join them.
Hmmmm. "Victory day has come faster than expected". I wonder what he means by that. Surely the timing of that message is funny.
Hmmmm. 200 muslim terror groups identified in the UK. Probably controlled from Pakistan. Hmmmm.
Mark, 'lo! See you guys back in about 3 hours. Gonna earn some big bucks right now (hopefully).
Oh, and fuck Lincoln Chaff.
ee.
Mike,
It's too bad that Americans don't really have the option of saying, "Aw, I'm tired of fighting with those radical Islamic bastards. Let's have peace."
It would be great if conditions like "peace" and "war" could be scheduled, like a heavyweight boxing match. When we get tired of our soldiers dying and getting wounded, we would just ring the bell. "End of Round 3."
But the radical Islamists and the Iranian nuclear program aren't going to say, "Okay, you guys building those nukes. Take a break. The Americans called for a 3 year time out."
Doesn't work that way.
Nor does it work to have an army of 300,000 soldiers ready to "go to war" against an enemy that has no location, has no army, has no centralized weaponry, and blends in with an enormous population of people.
Grea send our troops!!! Umm...where? Europe? That's where you say so many of their "soldiers" are. I guess we need to fight in the streets of London, right? Let's go!! America, fuck yeah!!
Before you gloat over this message that the "terrorists are happy the dems won," please tell me what you expected them to say if the GOP won. They would've said the same exact thing...don't think they would have said "dammit to allah, we wanted the dems to win." Gimme a break...
They want to scare us...they want to terrorize us...judging by what I read on this blog site, they are succeeding.
Mark: This net loss of 8 Republican US Senate seats happened just 2 years after Ronald Reagan won a 49 state victory over Walter Mondale.
I remember that. I remember that. I remember a map of the US with the states where Reagan won - all of them but one, and the sole state of a different color was Mondales. It was one central north, let me think. North Dakota? Iowa?
They called him "Fritz", didn't they?
Nor does it work to have an army of 300,000 soldiers ready to "go to war" against an enemy that has no location, has no army, has no centralized weaponry, and blends in with an enormous population of people.
Well... the US recently had a Secedf who seemed to realize that. Wanted to rebuild the army. More Special Forces. I even recall Clinton saying in 2002 or so that "when all this is over, I hope people are going to pay attention to what Rumsfeld says".
I guess we need to fight in the streets of London, right? Let's go!! America, fuck yeah!!
Well, no. That you shouldn't do. No need to save our asses a third time. We get what we deserve.
They want to scare us...they want to terrorize us...judging by what I read on this blog site, they are succeeding.
These guys are pure evil anon. Remember those two privates, Tucker and Menchaca who were abducted after Z-Cow was killed? These boys had their eyes cut out and, they did, well they did horrifying things with their bodies. I just HOPE the biys were dead by then.
Make no mistake Anon. Think of how diabolical Atta and crew were. There were "only" 3,000 dead in towers that normally hold 50,000 people. Atta & Co. flew in with the INTENTION to kill 50,000.
There are a lot of Atta's out there. Until now they were not able to do a 9/11 repeat because of Chimpy McBushHitler, turn it no matter how you want.
We'd better take them seriously.
Btw, I just finished a big sale. Hoo-ray! Long live capitalism!!!
Oh yeah anon, you asked: please tell me what you expected them to say if the GOP won.
Nothing. I don't recall them saying anything after Bush re-stole the election. I do recall however UBL trying to influence the vote against the Republicans just days prior to Nov 3, 2004, using excerpts from Michael Moores award-winning movie. Sumpin about telling a children's tale involving goats. Since that didn't work out to well, they figured out the tactic of wreaking havoc on a much bigger scale in Iraq starting six weeks before the election would be a better shot at influencing the American Voter.
It worked.
Speaking of Moore, I just heard he has been approached by the Colombian extreme leftist terror organization FART, uh, FARC. Together with Noam Chomsky.
These days, reality beats fiction.
"UBL trying to influence the vote against the Republicans just days prior to Nov 3, 2004"
I'll say he influenced it. I don't think he's that stupid; by releasing scary messages right before the election, it HEAVILY pushed people to vote for the GOP/Bush. I don't care if he said something about Bush's 8 minutes of "frozen thought." Just his image helped get out the vote for the right...and I think that's just what OBL wanted.
In case you haven't noticed, he wants a fight. He wants the attention. He wants us to be blogging about him every day. He knows he can't destroy us all like he would like, so are all of these successes? Damn right. That's why they say they are winning the war...
Mike,
I remember that. I remember that. I remember a map of the US with the states where Reagan won - all of them but one, and the sole state of a different color was Mondales. It was one central north, let me think. North Dakota? Iowa?
Minnesota. And Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota came within 9,000 votes of voting for Reagan. That close to a 50 state sweep.
And they did call Walter Mondale "Fritz."
But you got my point, right? That 2 years after Reagan wiped the floor with the Democrats, the Democrats kicked the Republicans' butts in the 1986 elections.
And Richard Nixon. In his second midterm, the elections of 1974, the Democrats really romped over the Republicans. But Nixon wasn't even in office by November 1974. He had resigned and Gerald Ford was the Prez.
After the Democrats followed up those victories with the 1976 victory of Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford, there were several news stories with headlines that read, "The End of the Republican Party?"
Well, we know what happend 4 years later in 1980.....
In case you haven't noticed, he wants a fight.
Well, actually that crossed my mind too. A bit like the surging violence in France will inevitably lead to a big win for the Front National, and maybe that's just what the crazies shouting "Allahu akbar" and burning buses want: a tougher opponent.
But then, that doesn't jibe with what we have seen in Iraq: over the past weeks the violence seemed to be aimed to maje Iraq look like a lost case.
I have to be a bit careful with that last assessment, because I do not know what is the proportion of AQ-inflicted violence in Iraq vis-à-vis the violence resulting from sectarian strife, in which, I assume, AQ is not directly involved.
But certainly, there's psychological plays being tought out. AQ may seem like a loose organization, but somehow, somewhere, there are planners at work. It's hard for us to grasp their motives, tactics et al. For instance, they use timeframes vastly larger than ours.
But you got my point, right?
I think I do.
These cycles are totally different from what I know. We have "executive" and "legislative" elections at the same time, meaning in one election it is decided what the government and parliament will look like. Whereas in your case, they are spaced two years apart.
There is another difference: you elect the Head of State directly. In our case, his appointment is the result of power brokering among the winning parties.
I just hope we don't get a certain Walloon socialist for PM next year. I might REALLY opt out of the USSB if such a travesty would happen.
Minnesota, right.
And Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota came within 9,000 votes of voting for Reagan. That close to a 50 state sweep.
Good God. Was it that close? I suppose Fritz is still on Prozac?
Mike,
These cycles are totally different from what I know. We have "executive" and "legislative" elections at the same time, meaning in one election it is decided what the government and parliament will look like. Whereas in your case, they are spaced two years apart.
Even during Presidential election years like 2000, 2004 and 2008, we have Congressional elections in which one third of the US Senate (33 or 34 seats) and all 435 US House seats are up for election.
Same thing in what we call "midterm" elections, except (1) there is no presidential contest and (2) most (but not all) of our governor's offices are up for election.
We Coloradans now live in "Demo-topia." The Democrats won the Governor's race in Colorado (Democrat Bill Ritter defeated Republican Bob Beauprez by a 55 to 41 percent margin) and the Democrats retained control over the Colorado State Senate and Colorado State House. They won both those legislative chambers in the 2004 election, even as bad news for the Democrats was happening around the country.
What do you think? Do you think Belgium should adopt the American electoral system?
Mike,
I just hope we don't get a certain Walloon socialist for PM next year. I might REALLY opt out of the USSB if such a travesty would happen.
You will have to keep us up to date on this. It's not too early to start "schooling" your American blog audience.
Okay, it's easy for people to say liberals have no plan for the WOT. I thought I'd propose a piece of one.
# 1, we have to realize that Iraq was a mistake and not repeat it. Trying to start democracy in the middle of that region is ludicrous...in Iraq especially. Within 10 years, Iraq will be no more and will probably be 3 different, smaller countries. We can NOT nation-build, period. It brings on WAY too much anger from both friends and foes and feeds the enemy's hatred and doesn't work, anyways.
#2, we have to differentiate between country-sponsored terrorism and the general WOT. We can defeat countries. We can NOT defeat all terrorists. You don't think any one of you could plan something bad and slip through the cracks if you really wanted? You could. We will not "win" an unwinnable war. That said, countries like Iran and N Korea, we should come down very hard on, but with a good, solid group of allies. But we CAN NOT confuse this with winning the "WOT."
#3, the WOT. We must realize that this is an unwinnable war. No visible enemy, no borders, etc. In my opinion, the only way to make serious progress in this war is with Intel and Special Ops. We should be putting MUCH, MUCH more money into these two areas. I think we probably are in Intel, but I think half of our military should be trained in special op roles. All strikes should be laser focused (figuratively) and done without fanfare. It sucks to not have a huge parade after we get some #3 guy, but we cannot to continue to feed the monster. We need to act in a whole new way...an effort that requires working in the shadows and no celebration afterwards.
I'll say it again...no traditional army has ever one a war against guerillas...it doesn't work. Hell, the American revolution is a classic case where we worked "as barbarians" against the tradition, marching soliders of GB and we wiped them out. Vietnam...wiped us out. Iraqi fighters & AQ...taking it to another level of vicousness and shadow fighting are not exactly losing this battle. We need to get with it. Traditional military is NOT the way to go. I'm glad that Rumsefeld and his antiquated thinking are gone. I look forward to seeing if we can't get some more creative thinkers involved, be they dems or republicans.
My $.02.
"That said, countries like Iran and N Korea, we should come down very hard on, but with a good, solid group of allies."
Well this is the problem Anon now isn't it? It sounds great to say we should go in with allies, but what happens when your "allies" do whatever they can to get in your way? Remember, Bush went to the UN before invading Iraq, and they delayed, and delayed, and in the end didn't have the stones to back up their own resolution. If going in to fight is the right decision, then it doesn't matter at all if France and Germany think it's a good idea. And also consider that the US is about the only country left that can fight a major war anywhere on the globe. Having allies these days amounts to window dressing; we're the only ones left who can do anything beyond our own borders militarily.
These days if you want to do anything bold, like say, strike N Korea or Iran, better to just do it and not let the UN drag it out and endlessly debate it and pretend there is a diplomatic solution to everything. People hate the US mostly because of their own national inferiority complexes. Since they are bound to hate us anyway, we might as well get things done instead of wasting our time weakening ourselves to gain their approval.
anon,
I'll say it again...no traditional army has ever one a war against guerillas...it doesn't work.
Not true.
Great Britain defeated communist guerillas in Malaysia.
Greece defeated its communist guerillas too.
Someone more knowledgable about world history could probably find many more examples.
That's not to say it's easy. But to say it has never been done is incorrect.
The WOT isn't something that's going to magically get better with a new strategy. I believe with persistence it can be contained over time, but it's not going to be solved any time soon. The perceived failure of Bush and Rumsfeld is largely bullshit, despite their mistakes. People think because there are still people shooting back that we are losing, or are surely failing. Guess what folks? This shit will be going on in 20 years whether Republicans or Democrats are in the While house or congress. This isn't about a quick fix, and anyone proposing a short term solution (bring our troops home now!) is just hiding from reality. All this crap about "a new plan" is pure politics.
We'll either have the balls to stick it out or not, and we all know what the odds of America sticking it out over the long haul are. I fear that it's going to take another massive attack to wake us up, but what I fear more is that Al Qaeda is smart enough not to do that while we sink back into a false sense of peace and security.
Scott,
Sorry to change topics...
Can you give me a summary of how Maine ended up with a 4 way race for governor? What were their different positions on the issues? Was the Republican candidate for Governor reasonably conservative or a RINO?
Sorry, mark, I meant to answer that. Here's the breakdown on the Maine gubernatorial race:
John E. Baldacci (D) 205227 38.06%
Chandler E. Woodcock (R) 161799 30.01%
Barbara Merrill (U) 115203 21.36%
Patricia H. LaMarche (G) 52388 9.72%
Phillip Morris NaPier (U) 4597 0.85%
Baldacci was the incumbent, and Woodcock was his primary GOP challenger. Woodock was fairly weak, and faded late in the game, bleeding off many votes to Independant Barbara Merril. She was actually the most in line with my beliefs, but until the last couple of weeks had almost no following, and some of the worst low budget ads ever. Pat Lamarche is a fairly loony green party member, and Phillip Morris Napier is a total wack job who shouldn't have been on the ballet.
From the numbers, it looks like if the right and center right folks could have united behind a single candidate, we might have forced out Baldacci, but I don't think things would have added up the same way if it were a two way race. Mainers still have an independent streak (our last governor was an independent) so any reasonable independent candidate is going to syphon off some votes. Seeing how TABOR went down 55/45, that tells you about where the liberal/ conservative ratio is.
Baldacci now claims that he's going to cut property taxes, but nobody takes this seriously. People up here bitch and moan about the lack of jobs, but can't put two an two together and figure out that you don't attract businesses if you tax the bejesus out of them. Things will have to get much worse for Mainers to see the light. Actually, it's not the real Mainers, but the Massachusetts transplants who are flushing us down the toilet.
"They want to scare us...they want to terrorize us...judging by what I read on this blog site, they are succeeding.
anon"
BULLSHIT! They want to kill us! That is somewhat different from scaring people. Dead men don't know fear, so if their goal was making us fearful, then they wouldn't be killing us.
The FACT is that the current strateguy is working. If we just don't panic and run in another 10 to 15 years Iraq will be a model democracy. That isn't such a bad time frame. It took 10 years to get Germany fixed and IIRC 8 before Japan elected a government.
Considering that Iraq lacked both the democratic institutions and work etichic of the Germans and the Japs, 10 years might be to short a time period. My original prediction back in '03 was 2 generations ( 40 years). The original Army plan was for 3 to 5 years. That plan was scraped when the Department of State took over.
Rummy did one hell of a job and he is being a man by stepping up and taking one in the chest for his country. He has volunteered to be the scape goat for what ever goes wrong. He did that to save his combatant commanders, who should all be releaved of command.
I saw that the German want to try Rummy for war crimes. Obviously it's time to bomb Berlin some more.
Upon learning that Rumsfeld was fired, Marine patrolling in Baghdad asks "Who is Rumsfeld?", proving that if you squander your education, you'll get stuck in Iraq
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailyn...on/
15981318.htm
Scott,
Thanks for that summary. I guess the voting behavior of Mainers (and the new Massachusetts transplants) is enough to almost make you want to walk into a crowded shopping mall, grab people by their shirt collars and say, "Don't you realize that we are screwing ourselves, not "the rich" and "the corporations" when we enact these policies."
It seems that, aside from casting a single vote once every other year on election day, we feel largely powerless and voiceless and ineffectual as we watch economic train wrecks happen right in front of us.
Anon, your posts at 8.12 and 8.13.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree. Like Mark said, Malaysia and Greece are classic examples of wars won by traditional military against guerrillas. Like stehpinkeln said, you have done nation building before.
Vietnam... wiped us out.$
NO. That is your perception. As it is the perception of all Europeans. The opposite is true. At the Thet Offensive, NVA and VC were slaughtered. From a military POV, they were beaten and the US position in Nam was never better. A fucker like Cronkite made it a US defeat.
Listen anon. I'm something of a nutter, all right. Why else would I be glued to the puter (late at night and still doing long very working weeks though) for over three years now. But... Have you ever heard about the Normandy battle, 1944?
That lasted two months and a half. It was meant to be much shorter. One of the key cities was Caen, in the British/Canadian sector. it was meant to be taken on D-DAY!!! It took them two months! One of the pillars of the German defense in that sector was 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend". There was a Canadian war correspondent around - I'm sorry I forget his name. This guy made almost daily radio broadcasts in which he practically made 'em Hitler boys sound like superheroes. But in the end that div. crippled away from the battlefield with some 600 troops and 10 tanks (normal complement 20,000, 200 tanks).
Luckily, LUCKILY, that war correspondent had not Cronkite's reach. Because perception does mean an awful lot.
scott: The perceived failure of Bush and Rumsfeld is largely bullshit, despite their mistakes. People think because there are still people shooting back that we are losing, or are surely failing.
This is exactly true. At each and every occasion, you outgun the enemy. That was so in Vietnam, it is so in Iraq. Acknowledge it!
The French in Dien Bien Phu, north Vietnam, 1954, THAT was a real defeat against the Vietnamese. NEVER did you suffer something like that post WWII. Never. Quite the opposite. But still anon, you write "Vietnam.. wiped us out". it simply isn't true.
Outlaw, it DID wipe us out. It killed this country and pushed the military into an abyss that took 20 years to recover from.
You keep mentioning WW2 and glossing over my comments about this war not having borders, armies, centralized leadership, etc. Do you not see a MAJOR difference?? There will never be an end to this war...period. Unless we ethnically cleanse the planet of Islamists (which I'm starting to think you guys here would be for) and even then, "terror" will happen by some other radical group or individual. This is nothing like WW2.
Iraq was a huge mistake...history will prove it. The WOT will never end, so stop thinking about it in traditional war-like terms.
Mike,
I agree. Vietnam did not "wipe us out."
As you mentioned, America was defeated psychologically.
But here's something most people do not realize about South Vietnam (the nation we were attempting to defend against a communist takeover by communist North Vietnam)........
The South Vietnamese military, at its peak, had 1.6 million men under arms. But it collapsed in an instant under fire from the North Vietnamese military. (The "Vietcong," the South Vietnamese communist guerillas, was destroyed by 1968.)
Why did the South Vietnamese army collapse?
In November 1974, a few months after Nixon resigned over Watergage, the Republicans were on the defensive. Because of Watergate, but also because of high inflation and bad economy. The Democrats controlled Congress prior to the November 1974 elections. But many of these Democrats were from the South and conservative on military matters.
The Democrats won big victories in the November 1974 midterm elections. Many of these new Democrats were not only against having the American military involved in the Vietnam war, they wanted the war to end immediately even if it meant a communist victory.
So, in 1975 the new overwhelmingly Democrat Congress completely cut off military aid to South Vietnam while the Soviet Union was arming communist North Vietnam to the teeth.
Over and over again, President Gerald Ford pleaded with the Democrat controlled Congress to pass a bill that would provide military aid to the South Vietnamese military. To no avail. The "new" Democrats wanted the communists to win.
The South Vietnamese military, 1.6 million strong, ran out of ammunition and the North Vietnamese army rolled in to the South with tanks and conquered all of South Vietnam.
The result? Over one million Vietnamese fled their native country across the Pacific ocean to escape the tyranny that was waiting for them. Many died because they tried to sail on unsailable "rafts" and many died for lack of food.
But many made to the United States and live in Orange County, California (and other places in the US too). I know. Because I spent many years working in Orange County, where the largest US-Vietnamese community resides.
Mike,
Also, the new "Watergate babies" of Congress in 1975 didn't just cut off the South Vietnamese and force a communist victory in Vietnam. (Some Democrats actually favored a communist victory, believing as future California Democrat state senator, Tom Hayden, that the communist North Vietnamese were "growing rice roots democracy in the Vietnam." Some Democrats just believed that being "anti-war" meant that you couldn't vote for military aid to one nation in a military conflict, because that would keep the "cycle of violence" going.)
But the new Watergate babies also decimated our intelligence services. Democrat Senator Frank Church (Idaho) helped pass requirements that would make it very difficult for America's intelligence agencies to get good intel.
Also, the Democrat Congress began cutting defense spending relentlessly. This pattern would not be reversed until the 1980 election when the Republicans won a net of 12 seats to the US Senate, a net of 33 seats to the US House (26 seats short of a majority however) and Ronald Reagan won the White House.
So, in some sense it is true that "Vietnam wiped us out," but only because we elected Lefties who disliked the American military (remember the young Bill Clinton as an opponent of the Vietnam war writing a letter saying "I loathe the military" ?) to run Congress.
Also, the Democrat Congress began cutting defense spending relentlessly. This pattern would not be reversed until the 1980 election.....
Well, actually, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, President Carter and the Democrat congress did increase military spending, one year before the Republican landslide of 1980.
Anon, I'd say you're thinking about the WOT more conventionally than anyoone else here. While there is a difference between regimes and rogue groups like Al Qaeda, it's the same fight, and we have to fight this war on many fronts. I know the left believes Iraq was just a sham, but we all know this is crap as the Clinton administration supported regime change and every one of the people bitching about Iraq now voted to give the President the power to invade. It's bullshit politics as usual. The Dems act like GWB was distracted from the real fight and should have put more troops in Afghanistan, or dealt with Iran or North Korea, but anyone with a functioning brain knows they would have been just as aggressive in attacking Bush if he had decided to invade Iran or bomb NK. It's all about hating Bush, and gaining power. I just hope they'll get over it in time to realize that there's more at stake here than their little power plays.
Scott, I agree with you about Iran or NK. However, nobody I know was against Afghanistan and going to get OBL. Again, it's a matter of degrees and of course, politics plays into it on both sides. I don't think you or anyone would argue that Iraq was definitely more preemptive than self defense. This is really the disagreement...where on the spectrum of "preemptive" is worthy of attacking and when is "self defense" really "self defense."
On one end of the spectrum, you have countries saying they HAVE the bomb or are working like mad to go nuclear. This alone does not necessarily mean we should go to war with them. If they say they want America to die and they are planning on using it, well, that's easy...we should get 'em.
On the other hand, every guy in a turban that says he hates America does not deserve a cruise missile through his rooftop. THIS is why this "war" on terror is incredibly difficult to fight and impossible to win. And THIS is why there is a healthy argument about how "preemptive" we should be.
It isn't as easy as one way or the other. It's good the two sides argue over these points. Again, I'm a big fan of the gridlock, aka. checks and balances. I'm glad Bush is now having to "compromise" for the first time in 6 years.
Mark, it's nice that (as usual) you wrap up everything in a nice tight bow, and package the entire Vietnam failure as caused by the democrats.
If it were just a money issue, we would've stomped Vietnam into the ground. Much of that war was NOT about funding...it was about fighting in non-traditional ways.
When I said they "wiped us out," I was assuming you were smart enough to know I didn't mean that they wiped out our military. Obviously, we survived. But there was a certain mindset that happened for 20 years after our first major defeat that did "wipe us out." The first Gulf War helped get rid of that. This one...well, the jury is still out, but it seems awfully similar to Vietnam. Not in the scope of battle, but in the psychological, boots on the ground mentality. I just heard a huge report about how we take a town over militarily, it calms down, we move on, and the insurgents move right back in. Ever see Hamburger Hill? Same deal...soldiers and Americans want to see progress. They are not...and don't tell me to wait 20 years. The current pattern in Iraq is one that is getting worse...not better.
I cannot believe there is anyone defending Rumsfeld at this point and time...unbelievable.
All that said, I am VERY excited about hearing from James Baker's group. I sure hope he lights a fire under W's ass and tells even you conservatives that much of the effort so far has been completely mismanaged and has led to dire consequences.
I am hopeful that "change" is enough to bring some new ideas to the table and that things can start to turn towards the positive.
Now that Bush has been humbled, I have the tiniest bit of hope that he'll actually listen to some people outside of the neocon circle. I have my doubts still, has he has shown a history of not doing this, but we'll see.
anon,
Mark, it's nice that (as usual) you wrap up everything in a nice tight bow, and package the entire Vietnam failure as caused by the democrats.
I noticed that you didn't take issue with the historical record that I presented.
So, yes. The Democrats did cut off military funding for South Vietnam while the Soviet Union was pouring money into North Vietnam and North Vietnam was pouring into South Vietnam.
Were there some Democrats who agreed with President Gerald Ford and supporting military aid for South Vietnam?
Yes. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a Democrat US Senator from Washington state) was famous for being a staunch anti-communist. But the results of the 1974 Watergate elections (many new Lefty Democrats in Congress) meant that Scoop Jackson's views would not previal. And South Vietnam would cease to exist as a result.
Again, you didn't dispute the history that I presented. You just didn't like the fact that the historical record makes Lefty Democrats look like enablers of communist genocidal maniacs.
anon,
I cannot believe there is anyone defending Rumsfeld at this point and time...unbelievable.
I can. Being a war-time secretary of Defense is very difficult. Rumsfeld has held this job as DoD secretary under the most difficult of circumstances.
And let's put it this way......
If I was over 70 years old and a multi-millionaire, I might prefer laying on a beach in Florida to working 70 hour weeks in the stressful job of participating in the running of the War on Terror.
But for 6 years, Rumsfeld worked himself to the bone on behalf of his country.
Can we all play Monday morning quarterback and point out what we think were Rumsfeld's mistakes? Sure. That's easy. That's one reason why being a war-time Secretary of Defense is so difficult.
But I admire Donald Rumsfeld as much or more than 90 percent of the people who serve in government.
I cannot believe there is anyone defending Rumsfeld at this point and time...unbelievable.
Wait dude. There's a post in the scaffolds.
I look forward to it Michael. One thing I said right after 9/11 was that Bush and all his inner circle were fucked. Not that I didn't believe they would have the resolve to go after our enemies, but it seemed to me (and it still does) that they were presented with a lose/lose scenario. If we were to have been attacked again after 9/11, it would be blamed on Bush & co. If we were not attacked, all their efforts to keep the pressure on would be seen as excessive and imperialistic by various people inside and outside this country, which of course is the reality we now face. Many people simply want Bush to fail, or see anything less than a completely peaceful world as a Bush failure.
By historic standards, I think Rumsfeld's record will hold up just fine, but I will wait for Michael's next post before going into the details.
78c9e5 218a39b18e
Commenting by HaloScan
